For those who didn't know, Dwyane Wade has been wearing a band-aid on his cheek lately with symbols on it. One said "Flash" on it all red, and another showed the American Flag on it. Wade originally had a cut and was wearing a regular band-aid and then started wearing custom band-aids over it. But it healed, and the NBA was all no no no, band-aids are meant for injury, not fashion blah blah blah.

Wow, really. It's already bad enough with the dress code. Really, get with the times. It's the 21st century. This ain't 1450. You don't need to dress in orderly fashion nearly everywhere you go.

ATLANTA (TICKER) —No more Band-Wade.

Prior to the Miami Heat’s 91-83 loss to the Atlanta Hawks on Friday night, the NBA banned Heat superstar Dwyane Wade from donning the Band-Aid on his left cheek that quickly had become a fashion statement.

Wade, the league’s leading scorer, originally wore the Band-Aid to seal a cut beneath his left eye. In the following days, including during NBA All-Star Weekend, Wade slapped his name, nickname “Flash” and even the American flag on the Band-Aid, though the wound had healed.

The NBA, doing its best impression of the NFL, wanted to stop the self-promotion.

“We spoke to (the Heat),” NBA spokesman Tim Frank said, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. “A player can wear a Band-Aid for healthcare purposes, but it shouldn’t have any name or identifications on it.”

The league aims for conformity at the arena, where players are forced to abide by a strict dress code before and after the game. Citing Frank, the newspaper said that Wade and the Heat weren’t in danger of any penalty but needed a quick reminder.

“We offered clarity to them,” Frank told the Sun-Sentinel. “You can’t wear an identifiable Band-Aid. We don’t expect it to be an issue, so there will be no need for a penalty.”

Two years ago, the NBA banned full-length tights under uniforms, which players had used as a fashion statement rather than for their intended medical use. The same now can be said for Wade’s rather unique facial accessory.

While I think this specific instance is stupid, you have to look at the big picture. If he allows Wade to do it he has to allow everyone in the NBA to do it, and what happens when people start wearing bandaids, arm bands, and knee braces, etc. with designs or advertisements? The problem is where do you draw the line? And to be honest this is where it has to be drawn. Otherwise you run the risk of being a hypocrite by allowing some decorative bandages and not others.

So, while very asinine in this instance, from a business perspective this is a smart decision and the only one Stern could have made.

Captain_Jack wrote:While I think this specific instance is stupid, you have to look at the big picture. If he allows Wade to do it he has to allow everyone in the NBA to do it, and what happens when people start wearing bandaids, arm bands, and knee braces, etc. with designs or advertisements? The problem is where do you draw the line? And to be honest this is where it has to be drawn. Otherwise you run the risk of being a hypocrite by allowing some decorative bandages and not others.

So, while very asinine in this instance, from a business perspective this is a smart decision and the only one Stern could have made.

I'm in complete agreement, yes they are money grubbing whores, who if given the chance, would exploit and commercialize every square inch of their bodies.

Ok, I'm exaggerating. But nip it in the bud and restrain their tacky instincts before they can get out of hand.

bigstrads wrote:Pathetic..............what did they think? people would start advertising products on their faces?...............well, I wouldnt put it past some of these money hungry whores.

What about Rip Hamiltons face mask that was worn LONG after it was needed for medical reasons?

one could argue that Rip's mask still protects his face from injuries.

The bandaid is no longer a bandaid but a piece of self expression. Which is kinda funny because the NBA allows tattoos... maybe Stern can force players to get all their tats lasered off. What happens if a player has a giant "**** YOU" tattooed on their arm.

Captain_Jack wrote:While I think this specific instance is stupid, you have to look at the big picture. If he allows Wade to do it he has to allow everyone in the NBA to do it, and what happens when people start wearing bandaids, arm bands, and knee braces, etc. with designs or advertisements? The problem is where do you draw the line? And to be honest this is where it has to be drawn. Otherwise you run the risk of being a hypocrite by allowing some decorative bandages and not others.

So, while very asinine in this instance, from a business perspective this is a smart decision and the only one Stern could have made.

I don't agree, Capt. I get what you're saying, but that's not really the case here. There's still room to draw the line in this case. As long as it's merely decorative, it should just be a player's choice.

In case it contains ads or anything else than a decorative device, then I'd agree that the league shouldn't let that happen. But there's a difference between that and a player who wants to wear something different. As long as it has no effect on the game, I don't see a reason to ban it.

bigstrads wrote:Pathetic..............what did they think? people would start advertising products on their faces?...............well, I wouldnt put it past some of these money hungry whores.

What about Rip Hamiltons face mask that was worn LONG after it was needed for medical reasons?

Rip's face mask is to prevent another injury. he's already had nose surgery 3 times and if he breaks his nose again, he basically wont be able to play anymore, cuz itll start falling off like michael jackson. that's why he keeps wearing it.

"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

Captain_Jack wrote:While I think this specific instance is stupid, you have to look at the big picture. If he allows Wade to do it he has to allow everyone in the NBA to do it, and what happens when people start wearing bandaids, arm bands, and knee braces, etc. with designs or advertisements? The problem is where do you draw the line? And to be honest this is where it has to be drawn. Otherwise you run the risk of being a hypocrite by allowing some decorative bandages and not others.

So, while very asinine in this instance, from a business perspective this is a smart decision and the only one Stern could have made.

I don't agree, Capt. I get what you're saying, but that's not really the case here. There's still room to draw the line in this case. As long as it's merely decorative, it should just be a player's choice.

In case it contains ads or anything else than a decorative device, then I'd agree that the league shouldn't let that happen. But there's a difference between that and a player who wants to wear something different. As long as it has no effect on the game, I don't see a reason to ban it.

But where do you draw the line then Bigs? Someone could wrap their entire body in decorative bandages, would that be ok with you? They could wear a do-rag on their head, "as long as it's just decorative". Then you start getting to a point where teams stop looking uniform and everyone is so busy with their "freedom of expression" that they're not playing basketball anymore.

Like I said this instance seems silly to ban, but if you allow anything you have to allow it all and so it's better just to ban all of it.

Captain_Jack wrote:While I think this specific instance is stupid, you have to look at the big picture. If he allows Wade to do it he has to allow everyone in the NBA to do it, and what happens when people start wearing bandaids, arm bands, and knee braces, etc. with designs or advertisements? The problem is where do you draw the line? And to be honest this is where it has to be drawn. Otherwise you run the risk of being a hypocrite by allowing some decorative bandages and not others.

So, while very asinine in this instance, from a business perspective this is a smart decision and the only one Stern could have made.

I don't agree, Capt. I get what you're saying, but that's not really the case here. There's still room to draw the line in this case. As long as it's merely decorative, it should just be a player's choice.

In case it contains ads or anything else than a decorative device, then I'd agree that the league shouldn't let that happen. But there's a difference between that and a player who wants to wear something different. As long as it has no effect on the game, I don't see a reason to ban it.

But where do you draw the line then Bigs? Someone could wrap their entire body in decorative bandages, would that be ok with you? They could wear a do-rag on their head, "as long as it's just decorative". Then you start getting to a point where teams stop looking uniform and everyone is so busy with their "freedom of expression" that they're not playing basketball anymore.

Like I said this instance seems silly to ban, but if you allow anything you have to allow it all and so it's better just to ban all of it.

Im with TMC, this is the NBA taking a page from the NFL in lack of fun. He wasn't promoting any corporation (other than his product aka talent), he was bringing his personality like Rodman did with his hair, Stockton keeping the short shorts, or other players do with headbands,

You do make a good point, Mc Crackerz, it's not like he's promoting a corparation or his own business, at least directly.

I admire these guys athleticism, there are some I do project in my mind to have some very admirable qualities. But as a herd, I give them zero credit for personal taste. I can see them eventually congratulating the one that got a profitable plug under the radar with his skin fashions and then everybody trying to follow suit. Then we all might be in agreement.

I'm not a fan of Stern, on the surface, this might seem to be overreacting, but given the taste of the people involved, I do think it is a slippery slope. I'm not sure what the benefit is, I hardly see it as an artistic, or creative self expression. Aren't these guys attention mongering enough?

You do make a good point, Mc Crackerz, it's not like he's promoting a corparation or his own business, at least directly.

I admire these guys athleticism, there are some I do project in my mind to have some very admirable qualities. But as a herd, I give them zero credit for personal taste. I can see them eventually congratulating the one that got a profitable plug under the radar with his skin fashions and then everybody trying to follow suit. Then we all might be in agreement.

I'm not a fan of Stern, on the surface, this might seem to be overreacting, but given the taste of the people involved, I do think it is a slippery slope. I'm not sure what the benefit is, I hardly see it as an artistic, or creative self expression. Aren't these guys attention mongering enough?

it is creative, cuz of the play of words. Band aid to band wade... its pretty good. Plus, each game, there was a different words or images that represented him, i thought it was cool. He had an American flag in one game. Flash written, lightning bolt, etc

it is creative, cuz of the play of words. Band aid to band wade... its pretty good. Plus, each game, there was a different words or images that represented him, i thought it was cool. He had an American flag in one game. Flash written, lightning bolt, etc

Forgive me, I get it now Mr. Crackerz.

I saw the flag, and I thought it was cool too. Let's face it, if anybody should be grateful for the American economic system it should be him, and at least, he is.

And in a rare moment, while I'm waxing patriotic. We sure got great sports! I'm glad we never bought that soccer thing, no offense at all intended to my foreign poster friends on this board.